Nintendo, for the past couple of generations in which system memory has mattered, has done the bare minimum to cater to the issue. Sometimes it's gotten away with that, but it's been a stick with which the company's been beaten over the past few years. In the Wii and DSi era download games were only just starting to emerge and a lack of memory wasn't necessarily a big problem, but by the time 3DS and then Wii U rolled around they were prominent issues. The 3DS thankfully supports standard SD cards and you can get a lot of content on a relatively cheap card - or the one packed in with the system - before it fills up.

The Wii U was the system where the clash between Nintendo's budget-centric approach and the nature of modern games began to emerge. The 'Deluxe' model has 32GB, which won't get you far, but the 'Basic' 8GB model leaves users with just a few GB by the time the system gobbles up space for its day one update. Basically, if you have a Wii U and want to have even a small download game collection, you need an external hard drive.

Space was at a premium with the Basic edition of the Wii U

The 8GB limit on the Basic model - which dropped off shelves after a while due to minimal demand - was a peculiar and very 'Nintendo' headache for developers. Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty was a title that took a long time to arrive, and at one point the developers highlighted the issue of the 8GB model - basically, it was tough getting the game small enough to theoretically install it on the white system without needing an external hard drive. Of course, most people had / have a hard drive connected to the Wii U, but the basic principle was that download games tried to meet the criteria that anyone with a system could access the game.

Nintendo fans often focus on the Nintendo example and pooh-pooh third-parties complaining about hardware constraints. The argument goes that a game as small to download as Super Mario 3D World on Wii U is an example of what can be done, so others should follow suit. That's not always fair or sensible, however - Nintendo develops custom tools for its hardware and knows it inside out, other studios have their own engines or the likes of Unity / Unreal to utilise and don't have the resources to reinvent the wheel for a port. It's too lazy to blame third-parties for disc space hogging games - unless more context justifies the criticism - when they're often just trying to make their games work any way they can.

Xenoblade Chronicles X had optional downloads to improve game performance

Anyway, one key point prevails here - if you didn't want to spend out on SD cards for 3DS or a hard drive for Wii U - especially as the latter could just bite the dust anyway, as I can attest - you could skip past eShop goodies and focus on physical retail games. Pop the disc or cartridge in and play, even if Nintendo offers optional download packs to speed up a beast like Xenoblade Chronicles X. That's how it should be.

So even though the Wii U data management options are garbage and external hard drives can die, your discs are there and you can play your games. One way or another the Wii U has the memory and capability to take a disc and play it, even if it insists on a download for updates etc. Yet with the Switch Nintendo has seemingly either a) gone off the deep end and thought 'screw it' with memory / data concerns or b) been caught out and put out shorthanded hardware. Basically, some boxed games will require a microSD card to access the full core game. I re-read the quotes a few times to be sure, but there it is.

This feels, to me, like the daftest issue with memory since the Vita, a system that surprised me out of the box. The Vita used bespoke memory cards (which was a bad move by Sony) which were pricey, but I was lucky and got a deal on an OLED model with a starter kit, including a humble 4GB memory card. The system itself had a crazy 1GB of on-board storage, which is Sony's way of saying 'buy our memory cards you cheap sod', so I took my 4GB card and installed my free download of Uncharted: Golden Abyss. It was a beast at about 3GB if memory serves, taking a huge chunk of my storage; I enjoyed it and then deleted it, as it severely limited my download options.

NBA 2K18 will be the first game to have the microSD boxart warning

The Vita situation was bad because the memory was custom to the system and - early on - was over-priced. Yet this scenario with NBA 2K18on Switch is different entirely, because the clear guidance is that if to date you've simply managed your system memory carefully - tough. Unlike with the 3DS family you don't get a pack-in memory expansion, and microSD cards - combined with the bigger size of Switch games - are more expensive than SD equivalents. Some, then, may not have taken the plunge yet, reasoning that they have the retail games on cartridges and have room for a few download-only games on the system memory.

The issue with Switch, in addition to its limited 32GB of storage, is how it uses that space. You lose a chunk right off the bat to system updates and processes (as you'd expect), and the moment you put in a microSD it starts using that automatically. The sticking point driving the NBA 2K18 mandatory card issue is that things like save data and updates naturally swallow up space, and we have limited power to manage our data. I've highlighted in the past that Data Management on Switch is a bit rubbish, as it doesn't let us move stuff around or target specific data in a useful way. The NBA 2K18 workaround, necessitating expanded memory even with the retail cart, is a base covering exercise as the realities of modern game design clash with Nintendo's cost-cutting efforts with on-board memory.

I think it's fair, on the one hand, to question why a game like NBA 2K18 can't fit as a full core game on the cartridge, and it's reflective of two things - perhaps the cartridges are too small in capacity or Nintendo has let 2K cheap out on low capacity stock, and it reminds us that demanding modern games aren't put together in a consumer-friendly way. Those that game exclusively on Nintendo hardware may not be used to it, but anyone with a PC / PS4 / Xbox One knows very well how massive games are put out in a sub-par state and are then bolstered by meaty updates. These updates are often huge in size and it's a modern inconvenience. On top of that, consoles like PS4 basically treat discs as unlock keys anyway, as they dump huge amounts of data on the console regardless.

Zelda: Breath of the Wild has a modest file size considering the scale of the game

In some ways, then, the Switch is delightfully user friendly in most cases. Yes there are downloads with physical copies of retail games in the form of updates, but to date they've often been manageable, and you pretty much just pop a cartridge in and start playing; your storage isn't clogged up with the entire cart's data, as would happen with a PS4 disc. Breath of the Wild, with its updates and DLC, has only taken up 433MB on my microSD; Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, just 32.8MB.

Yet we're seeing the flipside, with Nintendo hardware not catering to the modern games it wants to host. Yes, we can legitimately make complaints towards third-party developers making mandatory storage a problem, but the buck stops with Nintendo. Can you imagine the uproar if someone bought a brand new PS4 with a disc copy of Uncharted 4, but then couldn't play it until they hooked up an external hard drive or replaced the one in the console itself? Now picture the scene of someone buying a Switch and a couple of games, and one of those games requires storage that isn't in the box. It's a sloppy bit of product management, because you're adding to the day one 'mandatory' expense, even if the boxes are marked clearly. In a world of affordable, diverse and competitive technology it's a daft hindrance to give the system, even if it is the very definition of a first-world problem.

Most reading these pages likely have a microSD card, possibly one with a high storage capacity. But not everyone's put down $60+ for a microSD card, not all consumers feel the need to do so. But now it's an extra thing to buy, a restriction to work around.

It's not that bad.
We are getting up in arms about stuff we don't full understand yet. We know that Nintendo is great at compression so this likely will not be a problem for first party games any time soon.

This really falls on third party devs, and we don't even know what all games will have this issue. I say just buy an SD card and wait and see what happens. No point in forming an angry mob yet.

I thought whoever designed the architecture on the Wii U was fired since they haven't updated any of it for the demands of 2012 and the Switch looked like it did, but they just won't let go. Supposedly all of this will be solved once future updates allow for fine-grained data management, but it's been six months now and there's still nothing like that. I remember when older consoles also took time to have features like that, but come on now.

That said, this could all be linked back to fears of illegal game copying, but at some point it stops being worth it. I don't think Nintendo is at that point yet.

Good article Thomas, thanks. 2 comments: a) only the second Vita iteration (the non-OLED one) had 1GB of storage on-board and even then when you insert a memory card data is automatically saved there so it's pretty much useless. B) the biggest issue for me, and I'm talking as a 32 GB Wii U owner with a 2TB external hdd connected to it, is that Nintendo's next gen system is using the exact amount of memory as the previous one, which is pretty cheap and I'm very sure that they knew this would bite them one day,so I've come to the conclusion that they simply don't care. With the PS4 and the Xbox One the Base memory is the absolute highest they offered in the previous gen (500 GB) plus they provide options to go with 1 or 2 TB. Nintendo didn't even provide us with an option

It is the size of then system... if it was 64gb built in you would be looking bare minimum at a 20-30$ increase to the console, and the higher you increase that storage the more it goes up. It is the nature of handhelds.

Someone on Spawnwaves recent YouTube video made a very valid comment which if true totally negates this big 2K issue.

The download version from stores still comes in a box with a download code, this box states an SD card is required because the download is larger than what is left of system memory. The physical version doesn't come out for another month and there is nothing to say that won't utilise the full 32gb of card storage size.

Once the user base of Switch grows, Nintendo will be able to secure a bulk price for larger carts and we might see this scenario less. Obviously, the early supply issues have maybe thrown a spanner in the works and upset timing. (Hey...I'm an optimist!) New concepts have teething problems. As a gamer, I am actually chuffed to bits being a part of this new way of playing, warts and all.

You tell me what modern device doesn't need more memory and I'll show you an obsolete POS. It's a given that not only phones/tablets but even game consoles need extra memory now a days. It's just the way things are.

I mean, I expect this is an issue we'll see coming up eventually, but I haven't seen anyone (in reporting or the PR folks from Nintendo/2K) definitively say that the box we've all seen and the mandatory download/install isn't just that. Until I see someone discredit that, I'm going to continue to be a bit surprised that everyone has jumped to their pitchforks so quickly, and a bit shocked that NintendoLife didn't do the research required and/or show that they got an answer to this question before both reporting on it and writing an editorial presenting it as a matter of fact instead of a hypothetical situation.

That said, I get the people unhappy about this, and I don't like it either. I expect a physical game to have everything it needs (save for patches, obviously) and it's a game preservation nightmare (whether a title like 2K18 necessarily needs to be "preserved" is a whole other matter, but still). If this does prove to be a real thing for the Switch, it'll be quite a can of worms down the road. I'm not affected personally, as I'm 100% fine with extra downloads to lower the price of games and such. I do, however, condone everyone being the consumer they want to be. If it bothers you, vote with your wallets, and don't support games taking this route. Again, I don't mind personally, but I totally get why others do. It's far from an ideal scenario.

I think the issue is overblown. For a portable device, you can't rely on cheaper HDDs that wouldn't survive the jerking during normal use. Look at your mobile- how much memory does it have? 3DS? Vita? Tablet? Any other portable device?The best solution is to support higher capacity flash media or USB media, which Nintendo did without relying on proprietary hardware. Someone who just wants to play retail games can choose to pick up an 8gb flash drive for $10. A different user with downloadable demands can elect to increase the storage at a higher cost, but both can do so using third party prices that have historically decreased with time. Given the option for an extra 10gb of faster onboard memory OR a flash drive capacity for cards that have yet to hit the market, I'd rather future-proof the system.

@MarioPhD"Has anyone even 100% proven that the NBA 2K18 situation isn't just due to the box everyone's getting up in arms about being the one for the retail box containing the download code of the game?"

Yes they have. From Nintendo's own mouth:

"If you purchase a physical version of a game that requires an additional microSD memory card, you will be able to play a portion of the game right out of the box (for example, specific levels or modes)," a representative for Nintendo of America told IGN.

"To enjoy the full game, downloading additional data is required. Depending on the storage requirements for each game, it may be necessary to purchase a microSD card to expand storage space. When purchasing a digital version of the game, it may also be necessary to purchase a microSD card depending on the game’s storage requirements and the storage available on the consumer’s Nintendo Switch console."

Need I highlight specific sentences? This is an excellent article and highlights a major problem.

Is this for a physical and or a download in a box? Do we actually know that yet? I know from the file size of NBA 2K17 on PS4 (61GB of my Pros HDD) that they don't bother optimising their games but how have they got the Switch version to as much as 57GB (32GB cartridge plus internal memory)?

I don't think it's really a huge issue. That being said, if you are planning to get NBA 2K18, I'd recommend a 128GB card at the minimum. These games get a TON of regular updates throughout the NBA season that will sharply raise the overall file size.

Anyways, the bigger issue with the Switch is lack of data management options. I'm still not entirely sure the process to upgrade your microSD card is the same as it is on 3DS.

Would have been something if Nintendo would have allowed for saves, updates, patches and dlc to be saved on the cartridge and maybe have a internal + cloud (if you pay for the online service) backup of savefiles.

To many are scared of pirated games, so they lock the systems in to oblivion. Atleast we can use a standard storage solution like SDXC and not pay mad prices for proprietary solution like the vita needs.

@RedMageLanakyn
Ther's a android/ios FFXV comming. Don't know why we don't have that on switch, but maybe in the future.

Nintendo should have added a significant amount of storage space on the Switch at least 128gb. This way there won’t be confusion. This can hurt sales for the system as well as game developers/publishers. Maybe not now but when all the hype wears down.

This isn't really an issue compared to in-game purchases or subscription based games. Had the memory been included in the Switch, it would have been heavy and expensive. This is part of it's modular design that allows us to choose how much memory we need instead of forcing it in the package. I see this as us having more control over our product.

This is not an issue for me as I have been going digital for a while now and have a 128GB sd card. What annoys me is third partys putting the cost onto customers because they don't want to pay a bit more for producing larger game carts in the first place.

Unfortunately Nintendo have to pander to the big companies if they want the big games on the Switch.

Two questions from me:1. Why cant third parties put more effort into properly compressing their games?2. Why is a Sd card required? I have like 24GB on my internal memory, Is NBA 18 gonna need more than 20GB of storage on top of the game cart?

My Vita has collected dust because of Sony forcing their overpriced brand of memory cards. 2K (and EA if I'm not mistaken) has now started an ugly trend that I see other publishers following. Their thought process is, "Lets use the cheapest and smallest (in memory size) game card available and have our customers download the rest of the game". In my opinion this is bullshit. It's not like the publisher is going to pass down the savings to you. Games will still cost $60 and now you are left with having to download the remainder of the game so that you can access more features. Be prepared to purchase bigger size memory cards next year once 3rd party support starts kicking in. I already regret buying a 64gb card. Go big or go home I guess.

I can't think of one device that I own that does not need or offer the option of expandable memory so I don't see the big deal I actually think Nintendo made adding memory to the Switch easy the Wii U that was a pain ., and you can get micro SD cards for cheap these days I got a 128 GB for $24.00 and I like getting physical copies for the most part . So I think overall Nintendo did a good job with memory options for the Switch.

Bit of a non issue really, most gamers will have an SD card anyway and they're really cheap whilst offering other uses for the system. Not to mention that very few games will use this, it'll be interesting to see if Xenoblade and Skyrim need this because if they and Zelda don't then I don't really see why a basketball game does.

Late to the party - the sun finally came out so I went outside - but was it ever confirmed how the external memory card works in conjunction with the internal system memory?

I'm sure the OS would stay on the internal, so lets say that's 5GB (haven't checked) of the 32GB, leaving 27GB. If you buy a 32GB card day 1 and install it, do you have about 59GB available to easily use, or does the internal turn off leaving 32GB? I'd hate to think people are buying 32GB cards and really just getting an extra 5GB b/c 27GB of internal memory is hidden behind some awful OS memory management.

Wii U the internal memory was still there, but everything auto downloads to the external, so the internal can be used but isn't. 12GB PS3 the internal basically turned off, I don't even know how to find it, when I installed the old 80GB HDD from my other PS3 (which I upgraded to 500GB). PS4 500GB has filled up after 8 months, so I do alot of deleting, don't feel like dealing w/ an external after my experience w/ the Wii U. But from what I've been told the PS4 works much better with memory management than the Wii U does, letting you easily access both internal and external storage space. 1TB Xbox One has about 500GB free b/c I just bought it for Rare Replay and Gears of War. I'm told it takes external HDD but I have no idea how it handles memory management.

So when I buy a Switch, should I let the internal fill up, then buy a SD card, or can I easily access the internal storage space even after putting in an SD card?

Nintendo needs to teach 3rds how to compress! Too many 3rds don't care because they don't have to with the other systems. If it's extra work they don't seem to think they have to do it. I can't for the life of me see why NBA2k's file size is so big to begin with.

@Kalmaro I don't get it either. 2K is hardly a developer starved of resources trying to get games to work / fit as best they can. They could 'choose' to compress their games or learn how, but they don't bother. Cartridges could be 64gb, 100gb and it wouldn't matter, they'll take any cost saving measure and opt for the cheaper cart, not bother with compression and stiff the user.

For Nintendo's part, they simply can't win. If they made the above a rule, third-parties wouldn't bother, the Switch won't work with discs so they had to go with cartridges. Customers complained that the Switch even with 32gb of onboard memory cost too much, so to put in more was a risk they deemed not worth taking.

@LiberatedAnimal Lol what? The system was rushed because it had 32gb of on board storage? and third-parties can't learn to compress or pass the buck to consumers because they don't want to pay a bit more for a 32gb cartridge.

@crimsontadpoles as with every system these days? As someone said above, all AAA titles now require local storage either to have the game ripped to the system as on PS4 or to house the numerous updates and patches.

I fall into the camp of "It doesn't really matter" As I knew going in that I was was going to go (mostly) digital with the Switch anyways, so storage issues was always going to be a problem for me. Also the tech head that I am, I already had multiple high capacity micro SD cards laying around.

Though I think some of us are missing the point. Even if the publisher opted for the full 32GB game card. You still have to download the rest of the game seperately, which means you're only buying part of the game when you're buying physcial. I can absolutely see why it doesn't set well with some. Until Nintendo starts producing game carts of larger capacity, we're going to keep having this problem with AAA games (unless publishers opt to use the smaller game cards which then will be on them).

Also, we can't compare this situation to how it's done on the other platforms, given that even if you do have to install the whole disc to local storage, you'll still have access to the whole game (sans online if you don't have a sub) and as we know, and the article points this out, data management is much easier with the other guys.

Essentialy 2K are getting around adding 'Switch tax' by making you download half, if not all, the game. They are buying the cheapest carts from Nintendo and just sticking a portion of the game on it, the rest must be downloaded.

This has been done before with so called 'day one patches' for PS3 and 4 games. The publishers buy the cheaper single layer 25GB discs and put the rest online to be downloaded.

@Sir_JBizzleEven if the publisher opted for the full 32GB game card. You still have to download the rest of the game seperately, which means you're only buying part of the game when you're buying physcial.

This part makes no sense. The game is 25GB on Switch. It would fit inside a 32GB cart no problem, no need to download anything else.

Most games on PS3 required installs. It seems like every game I put into my PS4 also needs an install. It's not that different. And PlayStation systems use standard hard drives which are no more durable than an external drive.

I see how the price increases on products like smart phones and laptops when the capacity goes from 32 gb to 64, to 128 and beyond. A higher capacity hard drive would have pushed the Switch over the £300 mark. Nintendo try, as with past generations to be cheaper than PS and XBOX. Maybe the best solution would have been to have 2 models at launch. 32 gb and 64 or 128 gb model. I've seen the PS and XBOX have choices of different hard drive capacities.

To be honest, micro SD requirement isn't such a big issue I think. Flash memory isn't cheap... so I don't see Nintendo will give 128GB options or something. At least, Nintendo opted for a standard micro SD card that we can find quite affordable right now and the price will be going down every year (some might even have spare micro SD lying around). Compare that to Apple for instance, adding $100 for each 128GB and no expansion whatsoever. Comparing to PS4 or Xbox One, they used traditional HDD, so in a way, it's kinda unfair to compare them to Switch portable nature (Wii U, yes, 32GB sucks there).

Besides, it's not like every game going forward will require this. I think Nintendo just give 3rd party the option and it depends entirely to each of them to think if adding additional data is worthed it, or that they will fit everything on cartridge by whatever means. Consumer might feel alienated seeing the micro SD requirement warning on the box, so that's one thing for 3rd party to consider. At least, there is that option now, so the catridge size won't be a restriction for 3rd party to bring their AAA game to Switch, which can be a good thing if you think about it.

@BLP_Software Correct, but you aren't given the option to save to the internal afterwards, and you can't move stuff between the internal and the microSD.

Save data is also supposed to save to the internal even after a microSD is inserted. For example, I downloaded Splatoon 2 after getting a microSD. The software is on the microSD, but the save data is on the internal. The other day, however, I discovered that the save data for Sonic Mania is on the microSD rather than the internal.

I ain't gonna complain, I was gonna get an sd card eventually anyways. Anyone who whines about this seriously needs to cool out. I mean I gaurentee you're not gonna just get physical games anyways. Eshop exclusives are too damn tempting. The set amount of GB's on the switch isn't that much(not that little either) so an extended storage is almost a must anyways. Y'all act like 3DS isn't mandatory to buy another SD card with that wimpy 2GB(or is it 4) we're given! Also I'm sure another reason why this is required is due to the price of manufacturing the cartridges. If you don't want retail games being more expensive than 60 than this is probably the compensation for it. In honesty this is a simple fix. SD cards are really not that expensive you can find them on amazon for 15 and up, and if you're lucky you'll strike a deal every now and then. I love Nintendo, you can call me a Nintendo fanboy and I'll agree with you without hesitation. However I do call Nintendo on their BS when it's due given, this though, is not one of those times.

All understandable inconveniences aside, such complaints tend to reach the inevitable paradox where we lament the prices of microSD cards meant to increase storage yet imply or outright state Nintendo should provide more internal memory. Are people more content with buying extra memory out the gate? Or is the sentiment about wanting Nintendo to keep the Switch price where it is and sponge whatever extra cost may come with 64+ Gb storage? Alas, it's often the latter whether we admit it or not.

And this kind of hypocrisy is a perrenial conflict of interests in the market - companies want to sell more while spending less, we want to buy more while spending less. The article also explains why just wishing low game compression away won't make a splash. The only way out is to wait for the gradually decreasing memory prices - to bring extra eternal storage either in Switch's possible hardware facelift or in its successor. But as long as it's an inconvenience, it'll be as low among Nintendo's priorities as most inconveniences have seemed to be. 2K are probably not overly worried about the consumer discontent either - the lure of a full-scale NBA 2K18 on the go remains, especially with the last portable version in the series (no, smartphones will never count unless N-Gage somehow reincarnates among them) happening five years ago.

I don't buy any of this article. Everyone knew how much memory came in the system. You want a Nintendo console, evolve already. Those are the truths. Blah, blah, blah.. The consumer this. the consumer that. This is the nature of the beast. How are people surprised or shocked?

@Jokerwolf That is simply not true. For teh average Joe, yes, the difference between a 32Gb and 64GB micros SD cards is like 8-10 bucks (really good ones), but for Nintendo I guess it coulnd't have been more than 5 bucks.

In the case of the internal memory, a company was replacing iPads internal memory from 16Gb to 64GB for 35 bucks, a long time ago (18-24 months ago). So, I think Nintendo could have used a 64GB internal card, and it will have cost them extra 10-12 bucks.

I wonder if people even realize this, but I have a PS3 which I had to purchase an internal hd for. My PS4 now has an external 1tb hd. Same as my Wii U. My 3ds can hold like 100gb with the sd card...I don't remember exactly but it's big. My switch has a 128gb one i bought launch day with my switch. My iPhone is always running out of space and I have to limit games/music and pictures. This (memory) is always going to be an issue so just deal with it.

I really would like to know why some people find it acceptable to buy a game card that only contains a portion of the actual game. How is this different from day 1 patches that don't allow you to play the game out of the box? People used to hate that.

This might not affect you personally, (it doesn't affect me, I wasn't planning to pick this game up anyway), but man, is it depressing to see this many people going the "not my problem" route instead of calling the publisher out on this. Don't let this stuff slide, it will get worse if there's no pushback.

@Drommajin"Owning a Memory Card for retail games should be entirely optional."

But it is entirely optional! Why? Because buying a game that demands an additional Memory Card (for part of the content) is entirely optional in the first place. Some here make it sound like this was suddenly true for all games from now on, I don't think that will be the case. And last time I checked no one was forcing me to buy a retail game with said note on it, i.e. it is still my decision, my vote, if I'm okay with this practice or not. In other words: optional.

I'm not saying that i like this development, because I would also prefer to have everything on the cartridge, but I also think that we do not even know yet how often this will in fact be a problem.

There is only one single game I know of that is exclusively running on the New 3DS, and boy were we afraid that this would be trend when it was first announced... But it remained being only that single one. I am sure that here it will probably not be such a one-shot (doesn't feel like it), but still I'd say put away the torches and pitchforks for the time being.

@duducamargo Comes with the territory in general, all Xbox One and PS4 games have to be fully installed. I think it's BS no matter who is doing it but it isn't just because it's a portable, in fact I don't think the 3DS has this problem.

Games are getting bigger and bigger and if you support that trend then you must accept that Blu-Rays are to slow to access and cards have smaller storage limits (for a reasonable price).

Personally, I think tighter storage limits = less bloat but what do I know, I still play SNES games. A single 3D Model couldn't fit on an SNES cartridge.

@River3636 Sorry, but that's an incredibly dumb excuse. Being an early adopter has nothing to do with 2k's decision of getting the cheaper game card and inconveniencing the consumer in the process.

Regardless of whether I own a microSD or not, when I walk into a store and come out with a copy of a game, I expect it to work out of the box, preferably without eating up too much of my storage. This hasn't been the forte of many developers in other platforms, but I find it a bit more understandable there once I understood the limitations of optical media a bit better. In this case, there's no excuse for splicing the game up like this: the format isn't the problem, it's an issue caused entirely by 2k being cheapskates.

@jimiAnd only half the game is on physical makes that release not physical to me anymore. Because it literally isn't.

That's exactly how I see it as well. This weird middle ground doesn't give me the convenience of physical (more free storage) or digital (still need to carry the game card everywhere). It's a bizarre choice that doesn't benefit anyone but the publisher.

The last console where mandatory memory cards weren't an issue was the ps2, and that launched 16 years ago. As the author correctly points out, the mind is immediately drawn to the Vita as a console that bungled memory expansion as far as the consumer was concerned. And I say that as someone who loves his Switch and is happy that Nintendo appear to be (for now) successful.

@NinNin Not on Switch. Even on Wii U, that data is still on the disc itself, you don't need to download it. Which means, even when Nintendo pulls the Wii U eShop's plug, BotW will still be playable out of the box.

@MarcelRguez You are right somewhat, but how many times is this going to happen? If people want 3rd parties on a Nintendo system, buck up stop b**ching and move on.Those poor babies who just want the shiny box with the art, my heart bleeds for them. They need to get over it. There is no dumb excuse here. It has been the nature of the beast Eary adoption has kinks. If this company wants to do it, don't buy it. What is the stupid uproar?

As for publishers choosing smaller cards and putting the burden of additional storage on the consumer. I have been talking about this for years. About how physical is cheaper because then the publisher pays the cost of storage instead of the consumer. Paying full price for digital even though you have to provide the storage just raises the price IMO. Consumers though, have had no problem with it. Oh they may complain about the price of storage but that is only part of the issue, they need to be complaining about not getting a couple dollars off the digital price since the consumer provides the storage. Consumers have told publishers that they need not burden themselves with the cost of physical media as consumers are willing to pay full price anyway as well as buying their own storage solution.

The memory space of the Wii U is enough for me,I don't need an external hard drive.And its not because I buy only physical games,I have two retail titles installed(same goes for my 2DS with the included SD card).So if the Switch games are around the same size,I should do fine even whenever I get one.I'll just avoid like the plague those mandatory SD card games.

Ok everyone is up on arms about needing a microSD card to play a game on Switch. Needing extra memory to play games is nothing new, hence the "MANDATORY INSTALLS" of the Xbox 360, PS3, Xbox One and PS4, but nobody bats an eyelash. Let's be honest, who all that are raising this fuss are REALLY going to be playing NBA 2K18? I know I won't be, not because of needing a sdcard bit because I don't like basketball. Also people busting out pitchforks and torches, 1. Sports games have always been beast when it comes to needing more memory. 2. Who's to to say that this isn't the only game that'll require the sdcard, even if it isn't just go buy the biggest one you can find on the market. And problem solved, its not that big of a deal that everyone is trying to make out to be

@River3636 Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with early adopting. It could easily happen again down the line with a larger game, even if we have 64GB cards by then. That line of yours doesn't make much sense at all.

Besides that, why do you keep asking "what's the stupid uproar" when you clearly have no intention of listening? I'm giving you my reasoning for why this is not okay. You even said I'm "right somewhat", whatever that means, only to then downplay my points by calling the uproar stupid.

It's fine if you disagree with my points, but if you're not interested in replying to those, don't waste my time.

@luigifan624 Again with the "but the competition" excuse. Main (not only) difference here: all those consoles' mandatory installs go to the hard drive that comes with the system when you buy it. An apt comparison would be a game on, say, PS4 with a mandatory install of >500GB, which would force you to buy external storage just for that game. You'll notice that such a game doesn't exist on those platforms, and for good reason.

I don't understand the problem. Xbox and PS4 requires installs for games, physical or digital. Once you run out of space on the console then you need external storage. Same thing with the Switch. Why is it a problem for Nintendo to do this but not for the others?

Since the Switch's data storage can easily be expanded, I don't see how this is a big deal, really. More on-board storage would have just increased the console's price tag. Besides, this way you can control how much storage you have without either running out or wasting any space.

I'll probably end up investing in a micro SD card with a smaller capacity when I get a Switch since I prefer physical games. There are a few games I'm interested in that are download-only, however. I'm still using the 2GB SD card that came with my 3DS and have yet to fill it up; on the other hand, my Wii U only has roughly 2GB of internal storage remaining....

@Crono1973 Granted, but we all as gamers drop $60 and up a pop for games but are going to cry about needing a microSd card. My phone, tablets, etc if it has the slot for an sdcard you better believe there's one in there. Why? Because i ever know when i'll need extra storage. Im not up here kicking down Samsung's door. Its just the way of electronics nowadays.

@jimiSometimes it helps to read past the first sentence of a post before replying. You wouldn't have to ask why I am convinced that it is indeed optional if you had read on, because I answered this question in the third sentence, and made it clear in a later paragraph that I am actually not a friend of this practice either (so your efforts to convince me that it's bad business are completely wasted, preaching to the choir so to speak, and you would have known that if you had read my post).

I'll gladly repeat it just for you (even though I can't be sure that this time round you've read this far, oh well): in response to the original poster's claim that buying a Memory Card was perhaps not optional, I'm just saying that as long as I have a choice, it's clearly optional. And I (as we all) do have a choice, with this specific game and of course with any (currently still fictional) future game that might employ this practice: Just don't buy the game if I don't have an additional Memory Card anyway, and don't want to buy one just for this game. It's a generally valid statement, but apparently some people fail to see this while feeling so comfortable in rage mode.

Plus, the choice of just not buying the game (again: this is your option right there) is basically the only way to show the publisher that it's a bad idea, too. So I repeat: choice = optional. If you don't buy the game, you don't have to buy a Memory Card. QED.

But please, feel free to rage on (even if completely besides my point). It 's only the purest logic and common sense you're trying to disprove. Meh.

@Crono1973 Maybe I was buzzed when I said somewhat. There are 3rd parties with an incredible amount of storage, it is just, duh with the system's capacity. Who in the heck is going to play 2k in 6 years? Not me, Elder Scroll? Then we have a problem.

100% just my opinion....memory cards have been a thing since the PS1, at least for me. Regardless of the motivations or business logic behind it, it's just been a thing for a long time. Would it be great to have a ton of memory baked right in? Sure, it absolutely would. But then the system would cost $100 + more and everyone would be upset about that too, so for me...I'm focusing on the fact that I love my Switch. I am loving all the indie games coming out and I'll probably pick up the occasional AAA on physical. Shouldn't have an issue with this cause I have an sd card, but if I need more space I'll get another one. For me, I'm just stoked on the console, the games, and the experience, and I'm happy to be a part of this thing. Again, just one guy's opinion.

Assuming you mean large size files: this game isn't one of them. That's what makes this unacceptable.

Taking your Skyrim example: if the game goes well over 32GB in size (the largest Switch card available at the moment, I believe) and it comes down to either doing something like this or not putting the game out at all, then I'll gladly shut up about the issue. I might grumble a bit about compression and waiting for a larger card, but I'll be too busy playing the game.

This case, however, is very different, since the game fits on the largest card available. That's all there is to it, really.

@MarcelRguez that's why I said, "even if." It was more or less a hypothetical comment on AAA games with large file sizes as a whole. Eventually the Switch may start getting games that exceed even the 32GB game card size. So I don't know how that didn't make sense... (though I suppose I could have worded it a little better)

@MarcelRguez you keep throwing out 32GB as the biggest MicroSd card for the Switch. I have a 64GB in my Switch right now, which is just a place holder until I go buy a bigger one.

And in reference to what you said directed towards me. I take all that into consideration, and in a perfect gaming world this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. But since it is something we are faced with, the solution is a fairly simple one, which is why I don't understand the outlash. Would I be a little miffed about it if I didn't already have a card inserted and needed one? No, because i was already in the mindset of buying one for when and if that VC (fingers crossed) comes out also for the games I planned to buy digitally

It's an easy fix... just don't buy games that require extra storage if it's not your thing. I on the other hand will be picking up the 256GB or 400GB card. I won't need anything larger as I uninstall games I've completed or no longer play. This is similar to managing games on Xbox or PS4.

@Landlord I can't speak for Xbox, but on PS4 the whole game is on the disk, yes we do have to install the game from the disk to the HDD, but half the game is not locked behind a server. As a result, we will be able to play the games even when the servers go down.

With switch, the games that do this will lose their value as soon as the servers go down, and we will be left with half a game.

@Rika_Yoshitake This is exactly it. Nintendo does with their mobile device what every other mobile device does and people treat it like the end of the world and drag them over the coals.
Even on the flip side, if they had included more, people would complain about paying for more built-in when they could use the sd cards they already have. One of those situations where someone's always going to nitpick.
Besides, you pay for more storage either way if it's built in or external, so whats the difference, really?

The Switch version download is 25GB and there are 32GB cards available for the whole game to fit.
They have the balls to sell a limited edition for $99,99 that doesn't even have the full game on it?! I assume they put it on the smallest, cheapest 1GB catridge then, for the other 24 gigs to clog up our memory? xD

Sorry, but physical games should run out of the box, without the need of extra internet or memory to unlock missing modes, cutscenes, commentary and graphics.
I'm not boycotting or anything. I'm still open to the game, I just don't like how it's been released on retail as this weird physical/digital hybrid. I'm sure the game is great and fans of this sports will enjoy it.

I value my physical games as something I can own and share for a lifetime and replay as long as I want, while seeing a download collection as something that will sooner or later just vanish along with all the money put into it.

With optical media many gamers would rather go for the more robust, faster, and convenient download (and on the Wii U I did as well), but cartridges proved to be the most valuable, fastest, most bulletproof physical media you could put a videogame on in the last 30 years, so on Switch I'm reversing to retail, and have physical games a priority, especially now that memory is smaller and more expensive than last gen (microSD Cards instead of external hard drives).

@Crono1973 I didn't miss that. There's a key difference in the scenarios. "The Vita situation was bad because the memory was custom to the system and - early on - was over-priced."You can buy expensive or cheapo cards for your Switch and whatever brand you want. Chances are most people buying a Switch already have at least one card that works in it already. You don't have to buy Nintendo-only custom cards that they charge whatever they want for. I'd wager Vitas situation wouldn't have been nearly as bad if Sony didn't use proprietary memory.

I guess it's messy for those that must get all their games in physical form. But in today's modern age with digital versions readily available, and all the more convenient for a portable system, this hardly seems like the "mess" it might have been considered even 5 years ago. I mean to someone like me who only bought one title (my first title) in physical form for the Switch (Breath of the Wild), with my intention to buy all other titles digitally so that I never have to change out they game cartridge while having my entire game library immediately available, this doesn't register as a mess at all.

Personally to me this is confusing me why anyone is surprised or shocked by this.

Let's be realistic people were whining out of the gate before the system arrived when the Zelda size was determined against the amount of on board storage after the firmware eating a chunk of it.

This is no surprise at all and it's just saying the same thing. Some games will download more data for one reason or another and if you run out of room on the system, you'll need expanded memory in the slot or some parts won't work. Old news rehashed as new news isn't news, it's shock posting by the media to scare and make aware.

Hate to point out the obvious but tjis is nothing new it's just new for Nintendo. I have a 2 tb drive installed on my ps4 but can't play any new retail games on disc until I delete some stuff again as almost all games install all or mostly all on the system. Plus the ps4 has horrible memory management and actually loses storage space as you write/overwrite and Sony has gotten away without fixing it for years.

Even worse Sony let's exclusives get away with the same crap. At least for now it's third party with the switch. It's not great but it makes sense it you want third party support. They have been screwing players over for years on other systems, do you really think Nintendo is exempt from that if the switch had ten times the storage?

Nintendo shouldn't let publishers choose the size of cartridges for their games. It should be mandatory that any game comes in a cartridge of the right size. That would stop publishers from cheating out on cartridge cost and going for the smallest cartridge while making the rest of the game a download.That totally defeats the concept of cartridges. And what about 15 or 20 years down the road when servers stop running? If you've got a SuperNES now, you can just insert a cartridge and start playing, but with this horrible trend that we might start seeing, that won't be possible. Basically they're making cartridges just a link to the eShop.I hate this.

A very good and fair article. I must be a minority Wii u owner as I never had need for an external HDD. But I have a few eshop titles maybe 10 or so and I'm fairly sure my 32gb inbuilt HDD is close to full so I can see the problem.

The switch's small memory size is probably due to start being a problem now it's been out for 6 months but I only bought a 64gb micro SD and I have barely used any of it yet with about 4 or 5 eshop games on it. I prefer to have the games cards for major titles though.

I'm guessing the scale of the NBA game means it needs space to extract and install to just like ps4 games? It sucks for gamers but memory management bseems to be a fact of life these days for any device. My mobile phone is useless without a micro SD.

Eh, it just seems like this is being blown out of proportion. Maybe I'm not understanding the hoopla because memory cards/ HDDs have kinda been required on most platforms since the 90s. Yes, even retail games. Want to save your game or have additional save data? You'll need a memory card. Want to play the new retail game you bought? Well, you'll need to install it, which requires memory card/HDD space. Want to download this vc or indie game? Want to download this DLC for your retail game? Yup, you'll need additional storage.

And yeah, this isn't some thing that's exclusive to Nintendo like some people are acting like. You want to install your retail game on PS4,XB1 or PC, you'll be eating away at your HDD from the install and all the save data. If you have a decent retail collection, you'll need to buy a larger one.

@duffmmann Someone like you may regret renting digital copies when the store stops working. Sure, it may take a decade but at some point you will lose them through no action of your own (aside from renting them digitally in the first place).

A half-physical, half-digital game has no physical benefit at all. If this becomes the norm, it will kill physical copies as there will be no point in buying them.

I see no big problem here, most people will get a expansion sooner or later, Switch does what the others do on a smaller scale, I got a 64gb on sale for £9 so what's the wrong? ... People might as well complain when Xbox one X has 2tb of memory and big games in 4k take up 100gb+ lol

@crimsontadpoles this is the reality even though this is a pro Nintendo site so most members won't see it that way. I love Nintendo and the switch. It is a hybrid console so some thing should be expected to be behind the curve in a way. Other things just seem to be Nintendo trying to be different for no good reason (see voice chat solution). Some developers will think of the gamers and give the best work around possible.... Others won't waste the time and resources and you can't blame them.

@JokerwolfExactly! As a consumer, would you rather a cheaper system with an option to upsize the storage? Sure! Now you can, and it's entirely up to you by how much. What's the problem here? Game systems are expensive. If you wanna save money and do something cheap, perhaps find a new hobby? Haven't had to yet, as I'm only halfway through my storage (only downloaded size-efficient Nintendo software so far), but I'm planning on grabbing a 128GB card for the 3rd-party beasts.

Mine is 3 TB and is completely awesome, and didn't break the bank. It's great for when you run out of space on your phone and the best part is, you can access your content anywhere! It's like having expandable storage for your phone, or laptop, or iPad, or whatever else. And the app is really easy to use, and functions as a pretty good music player (or at least a means to transfer content to your media player of choice; I like VOX). Super awesome.

How is this different from mandatory installs on the 4KTwins? Oh you have to buy an sd card? And? You have to either start deleting stuff off or buy an external HDD for the Twins. This is nothing new. Perhaps for Nintendo only users yes, but not for the multi plat gamers. Just get a cheap large micro sd and game on. This is not the molehill to die on folks.

The Switch has to be getting a revision in a year or so, and hopefully included with it is more memory inside. Yes, this problem exists with PS4 and Xboner to a point, but they still provide you with a ton of space to start so if you are still a physical buyer, you aren't going to have to expand your HD for awhile.

why the heck are people so mad about this your telling me none of you have had to buy a more memory solution in the pass? how about needed a game cube memory card? the expansion pack to play perfect dark and donkey kong 64. gamer's moan way to much now imo, it used to be you need this okay i'll buy it if the games fun. also yeah guys you play 3ds games they use a micro sd to save games alone and this is console, also so look at the dlc's for games like hyrule warriors for the wii u xenoblade X also had more textures to add because it made the game better... just be glad you aren't having to DL a texture 100 gig patch to even play the game in the first place, seriously don't get why MS are doing that...

also i have a launch ps4 you wanna know how many times i've had to make room to play a new game? many some games are stupidly big. so many people wanted nintendo to get with 2017, now they have you guys happy about it?

@Drommajin You mean like having to own a hard drive in the PS4 & Xbox One with enough free space should be optional with retail games too...oh, wait. I had to purchase an external hard drive for my One due to mandatory installs of retail games. How is this worse?!?

@XCWarrior The stock 500GB on a PS4/One is not "tons of space" when you have mandatory installs of 40, 50, 60GB games. I bought a 128GB thumb drive for my Wii U and have 150+ retail and digital games for that. I had to add a 2TB hard drive to my Xbox One after I had about 8 retail games.

To be fair, every PS4 and Xbox 1 game requires an install and some quite large. So its no wonder those systems come with more storage. NBA is the first and so far only game that may need more storage. I fail to see how this 'Nintendo being Nintendo' when the others do this.

People need to stop whining and female dogging about the small things. I put a 64GB Micro SD card in my Switch the day I got it. I have 26 games and have 23.6GB free on the system and 34GB free on the micro sd card. I paid $25 for the Sandisk card...people are seriously going to blah about this?!?

@XCWarrior I wouldn't call the starting storage for PS4 or Xbox One to be a "ton of space to start." I own both and both required an external hard drive after only a few physical games (due to mandatory installs and updates). I even needed to buy extra memory for my phone, PS Vita, 3DS, digital camera, etc.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE The population that visits this site is split. Half see the problems and wish for nintendo to get it right. They see the potential. Others are happy with what ever Nintendo does and are quick to make excuses. This allows Nintendo to do the same thing over and over again. I happen to be on your side. Just because I spend my money on Nintendo products doesn't mean I'm not going to point out what I don't like.

@joey302 A little cream or milk for coffee cost next to nothing. Adding to the size of the internal memory to the Switch would be expensive and not needed by a large portion of the user base. Sounds like you just want something to whine about.

It certainly seems like a pickle... You can ask why the publisher doesn't just use larger cartridges to fit their game, and you can ask why Nintendo didn't give the the Switch more internal storage too. Ultimately though it's pretty clear that a lot of compromises had to be made in order to create this hybrid system.

If a game is being released on a cartridge then it should be playable from the cartridge with no install required. This is case of Nintendo failing to tell a developer "No" when they really should have.

@adam9431 Compared to the Switch, it's a ton of space. But it is really sad game devs are requiring the large installs. It's why I go PC for my non-Nintendo stuff. Not sure why more people don't do the same.

@Amsterdamsters@Ryu_Niiyama@adam9431 Guys, the space provided at the start for the PS4 and Xboner is far more than the Switch. You can complain you still needed to get an external HD - and I know you did - but you still got to start with a lot more space.

I can't stand the installs that's become standard. I miss the days of bringing home the game, popping it in, and playing it immediately. Sadly those days, outside of the 3DS, are long gone apparently.

"Xenoblade Chronicles X had optional downloads to improve game performance"

About this point in particular, there have been many Japanese games over the years (particularly on the PSP) which have had a "Download Data" option, which primarily existed to speed up load times. (Granted, modding the PSP and copying the entire game on the Memory Stick was a much better remedy for certain games like Phantasy Star Portable 2/Infinity, but that's another story...)

However, those have always been strictly optional. There is quite the difference between that and being required to download part of the base game files just to access everything.

The memory card allegory that some have made doesn't work, either. For example, GCN memory cards just store save files- you needed it for recording save data, but not to store data that otherwise would have been on the disc. Even most recently with the 3DS, there was quite a bit more freedom with SD card usage, and almost all 3DS games absolutely contain all core files on physical copies (more on that later).

This might seem to be an insignificant difference at first glace, but the ramifications of not being able to absolutely access all core files from the physical media (whether directly or by installation) after purchase are quite detrimental in the long term. Especially from a preservation standpoint, allowing 3rd parties to skirt necessary media sizes with the intent of promoting "mandatory download of partial pieces of games as a service" is a potentially destructive precedent to set. If this becomes normal practice, beware to the one who tries to play an old favorite on their NS in 10 years hence, only to find out they have merely partial access to their legally purchased title, no download data backups, and no way to reach defunct file hosts. (Resulting in access being locked.)

By comparison, the PS4/XB1 mandatory HDD installs aren't ideal either, but optical disc drives read too slowly now for many modern games, so that compromise is at least understandable. The PC sphere has handled the digital only transition far more naturally, especially with modern SSD's providing greatly improved read/write times, and deep software sales from Steam, GOG, Humble Bundle, etc being abundant. These days, there's little room for confusion once the hardware is set up, just install and run.

By contrast, it seems as time goes on, the software policies surrounding the NS are becoming increasingly complicated to account for over time. This seems to be the culmination of Nintendo dabbling in the concept of producing "partial products requiring extra digital purchases and/or storage to access core files," which was typified with how Fire Emblem Echoes was handled. The move to now blatantly allow corners to be cut by third parties, thereby putting an additional burden upon the customer, is the logical conclusion of the type of software policy behind FE: Echoes and the like.

In other words... yes, this type of allowance courtesy of Nintendo was predictable. Disappointing, but not unexpected. As for me... I think I will skip the NS for now until a later date... Maybe there will be some kind of amendments 2-4 years hence, when the inevitable mid gen SKU upgrade is released. But that depends on whether there's sufficient customer outcry against questionable practices. Frankly, it doesn't seem that console gamers as a whole quite have the belly for such things as PC gamers as a whole do.

As a side observation of posts in this thread, it seems like one's stance on this matter often correlates towards whether one primarily uses the term "customer" or "consumer." A customer is a human being, a consumer may as well be an automaton. Such is how one views and reacts to others, according to their preference of terms...

I feel this is just another case where people are making mountains out of molehills over nothing. A good sized Micro SD card can be had for relatively cheap these days. Really though flash memory is the only good option for a system like switch. I shoudn't have to remind people of what happened when Sony thought sticking an actual disc drive in the PSP was a good idea.

Lets not act like Nintendo isn't aware of the issue either. They do plan on adding support for external drives in the future and switch actually supports mirco SD cards up to 2TB which don't really exist yet.

I will not be surprised if eventually we reach an all digital future. I mean we have already seen this PC games where even with boxed copies the disc usually contains little more than the basic installation files after which its pretty much tied to your Steam/EA/Blizzard account

@XCWarrior Yeah, the ability to immediately play purchased physical copies of titles is supposed to be one of the primary reasons to own a console. A console that can't do that is... arguably not a true console, but something else entirely, from my viewpoint... More like a PC or mobile device posing as a console.

I still don't know how 2TB SD card support is going to be reasonably handled when the port apparently only supports UHS-I, and not UHS-II... Those load times are going to become pretty bad once storage fills up, unless a future mid-gen SKU upgrade adds UHS-II support... Which will force anyone wanting to take advantage of such a feature 4 years hence to plop down another $300+ to upgrade... Not to mention such a card will likely cost at least as much as half the system.

I don't have a microSD card for my Switch, but I'm not buying this basketball game anyway so it's all good for me...for now.

But, yes, it does seems somewhat unnecessary nowadays to do this to consumers, but whatcha gonna do? Complaining won't change anything with Nintendo here. They do what they want and what makes sense for them. Just an "evil corporation" like all the others.

I wonder what the complaining would have been like if 2K put the game on two carts? Hopefully less. I remember playing Dragon's Lair on the Amiga and I think that was 8 disks!

So, yeah, it'll cost a few more bucks here and there to enjoy the Switch. Oh well. Oh, that reminds me, I wonder how much the online service will be in CAD? I wonder if I'll have to buy two memberships as there are two people here that use the Switch with separate Nintendo Accounts?

@electrolite77 If you want to be like that, may as well admit anything and everything in life falls into that category. Every day is full of choices and opportunities, but you can't do everything. Decisions, decisions...

@MsgBoardGamer Sony/MS are in a bit of a tough spot for optimization at the moment. They're currently locked into refreshes of the now aged Jaguar APU (even the brand new XB1X), severely bottlenecking graphics performance. Not to mention it was proven a while ago with the PS4/Pro/XB1 that substituting the default HDD with an SSD provides nearly no load time benefits, since the systems are not designed to fully take advantage of SSD's. Cards topping 64+GB are still out of the question for many publishers. Optical drive read speeds would be an unconscionably slow choice for many newer titles. So all they were left with is mandatory HDD installs, coupled with the now slow read speeds inherent to mechanical drives. They really wedged themselves between a rock and a hard place.

"and it's clear that they're not chasing the Western AAA market..."

I would think that securing an updated version of Skyrim and the like is less a fleeting flirtation and more an attempt to get the ball rolling. And surely this accommodating incentive for 2K, allowing them to downgrade to a 16GB card from a 32GB card for their 25GB annual basketball title, isn't just a one-off brief breeze of extra windfall going their way?

@jimiThat's exactly my point: You always have options, and if you care to review my original post and what exactly I replied to you can see what I mean. The original poster wrote:

"Owning a Memory Card for retail games should be entirely optional."

All I am saying that owning a Memory Card is indeed absolutely optional, because not buying a retail game that demands one is your option right there (or just playing the portion that is included on the Game Card, so there's actually even a thir option...). In fact, it is even absolutely optional to buy a Switch or play video games in the first place. So owning a Memory Card is in no way mandatory for anything. There was a generalized statement by the original poster I replied to, which didn't stand to the facts or the truth by any standards. That's all I wanted to point out. Some make it seem like you don't have a choice, but you do. You always do.

What you apparently do not get is that my post is not about me being okay with the practice or not. I am also not saying that we should keep quiet about this. I am saying that if you don't like it vote with your wallet and just do not choose this option they want to compel you to choose. Choose another. Because there is one, right in front of you. You may also just complain about it if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change anything.

And once more, just for the record: I don't like it. I believe that everything should be on the retail Card, too. But claiming that owning a Memory Card would not be optional is just not true in any sense. That was and is my point.

Well yeah, when it comes to Consoles you should think like that. Else they'd just put out the most powerful machines they could and sell them for 3 grand. Consoles have to compromise to fit a certain form factor, price etc. so they compromise on processors, storage, included peripherals etc. It's just a fact.

@DrommajinWell, basically I do understand what you mean of course. You mean IF you're hell-bent on getting this very game and really cannot live without it, AND IF the extra content you need to download is precisely the one part of the game you can't do without, then you may in fact have to own a Memory Card. But before this there are two very strong "ifs", and that means options.

I can still decide if playing this specific game, or more precisely the portion that is not available on the Game Cart from the start, is worth it for me to get a Memory Card (if I didn't already have one). There's a decision and a choice involved. i.e. it is indeed optional.

Anyway, that's the status quo at this point, and we do not know if this catches on or not, we don't even know yet what portion of this or any other game in the future will be locked like that. So I choose to take a wait and see approach (there's another option right there... ).

I'm not sure I agree on the love of Nintendo. There are a number of posters here who had a fantasy about Nintendo making a certain type of Console regardless of whether it would be good for Nintendo. They don't care about market reality, they don't care whether it would have flopped and cost Nintendo a fortune. They didn't get what they wanted and because of that they want Switch to fail. There's no love for Nintendo there.

Getting a port of Skyrim doesn't tell us much about Nintendo pursuing current-gen triple AAA games. Last-gen maybe, they've got sport games, but if they wanted to make a statement about current-gen Western AAA's they would have thrown money at Activision or EA or Ubi Soft until they said yes.

The most obvious clue to the (un)likelihood of such games on Switch is the design of the Switch but the games announced so far merely confirm that.

So its similar situation with the ps4? Buy a game on disc but still have to install 40gb on the system! I have a roughly 10 games on my ps4 and have had to delete things from the 500gb storage in order to put other things on there.That's more of hassle than anything else. This will only make people more picky when buying third party games if developers are only willing to use the 16gb cartridges rather than the 32gb which are available for them too. Passing on the mandatory cost to the consumer is the opposite of consumer friendly

@SLIGEACH_EIRE No console ever costs the baseline amount you see on the day. First thing I did when i got my Xbox was buy a second controller. Large parts of many games are "locked away" unless I buy a second controller for multiplayer. That's much dearer than an sd card. Wasnt long before I had to buy a hard drive either.

So does everyone choose to forget games like Animal Crossing on the Gamecube? It required a full memory card to itself. Who knows how much storage this will take a 32 gb card may support 20 games who knows

while it's a non issue for me (I have a big SD cards and mostly buy digital games anyway) it's another case of Nintendo awkardly fixing a problem they themself created. Why can't they make 64gb cartridge at a premium ? Sure it's not great for the publisher cause it cut their margin but that's what you get when you have to sell something too big (even in the physical world) And anyway, in this current case they have to deal with splitting their game in 2 part, requiere consummer to have a micro SD and a good internet connection. Not a great purchasing experience. As a publisher I would rather pay a bit more to ship my game in a 64gb card than have to deal with all of this and the consummer backlash that will inevitably follow.

Whatever I don't really care. It's just look like app voice chat all over again.

@electrolite77 some money is still better than no money.It's not like there's not already a lot of cost to release a game on a plateform. You're not asking them to sell their game at a loss...It's all about how much you can make from selling on a platform, that's how business work.

Anyway, I heard NBA 2k18 actually doesn't use the larger card available ( 32gb) and prefered to use this solution with a 32gb card, so in this particular instance, it's 2k's fault for choosing a "cheaper" solution. But it's difficult to blame them at this point. They couldn't know at the time how succesfull the Switch would be and they still don't know how much their game can sell in this console, so they tried to minimized the risks.

@w00dm4n lol is that a song. We gotta get outta here? I also think all about the pentiums parody with weird Al yankovic. Does make me laugh to see the games can't even run without sd. And then needing the amiibo for hard mode in Metroid 2 samus returns. Back in my day we had everything we wanted once we popped on the game and unlocked extras by having the skill (or game genie) to beat it. Damn I feel old.

That's kind of it though. Nintendo are walking such a tightrope when it comes to third-party support them turning around and telling 2k 'thanks for publishing on our Console, even though our cartridges are already more expensive than Blu-ray discs, we're now going to cut your margins by mandating what size of cart you can use' would be absolutely crazy. It would be too easy for 2k and other publishers to just go 'ah forget it then' at that point.

It's not that big a deal, in this silly world of gaming today.The mandatory hard drive for WiiU was far more inconvenient than needing a memory card which is relatively cheap and should pretty well last forever. I bought a card for the switch just for good measure and it should last me a good while as I buy retail when possible. And if I really need to buy another larger card, I'll gripe, but so be it. Im' sure Xenoblade is gonna need lots of download space but it'll be worth it, so we'll do it. Hopefully there won't be tons of games that require mandatory extra space, but then, if thats the cost of having more third party games, I'll happily pay it after the Nintendo-only zone that was the WiiU.

@Nolan420 I was a little surprised to see a 128gb ipod, but I looked it up. The upgrade from 32gb to 128gb on the same model sold on apple's website adds $100 to the cost. I don't think a 30% price increase on the Switch MSRP to able to play the handful of games requiring more memory would be worth a forced upgrade, particularly when you can just add expandable memory and let players decide how much they do (or don't) need at a cost they're willing to accept.

@electrolite77 Well no, it's not how it work. Why would anyone says "Let's forget about it !" if they can make money ?You have people whom job is to look at sell potential vs cost, they look at what it would cost to make it happens, and how much it realistically could sell and if it can make them money and they have the work force available then they do it. It all depends on thoses 2 numbers, "how much it cost" and "how much we can earn from it".

When you're in the business of making game you don't throw an opportunity to make business when you can.

Of course it cost more to use a 32gb card (and a 64gb if it existed) but if this additionnal cost translate to more sales ( a lesser barrier to entry ) less maintenance cost ( dealing with the split version of the game, and consummer backlash ) then it can even out.

What I'm trying to say is that there's no reason NOT to give the developper the choice. They can choose wether or not it makes financial sense for them. "Here's the 64gb card, it costs X. Don't want it ? We have a cheaper one at 32gb, you can reduce your game size and use it or split your game, your choice."

@Amsterdamsters not whining at all. I have a 256G card so I'm good. Have you read the rest of these comments here?? The coffee analogy may not have been the best one I admit, but plenty of gamers here take issue with this situation not just me.

@JunkRabbit And you are accepting to pay full price on a game that isn't entirely available on the cartridge? Well, I am certainly not ok with this.

IMO, you just have the illusion you are the guy calling the shots in this matter. Maybe it suits fine for you but not for me.

Also, if this catches on, what'll be the point of releasing games on cartridges if you basically have to download it later? You'll let them sell empty boxes with download codes - oh, wait, it's happening already... (of course, people are actually willing to let they keep doing this).

@Amsterdamsters No. Maybe you don't see the difference between having a game on a cartridge and having a game on a optical media.

The Switch uses cartridges which in theory would have enough extra space to download updates to your games without using external memory cards.

Why they are pulling this stunt? They are just transferring the cost - even if its a small cost - to you.

Note: you have paid U$300 for a Nintendo Switch WITHOUT a decent storage. You have paid less than U$ 300 in a regular PS4/XONE with 500Gb at least.

So, if you (by you I mean all of us as consumers) don't see how this is very, very bad for us consumers, maybe you (we) deserve to throw more and more money at those people for things we should have from the get go or without an extra cost.

I saw this coming from afar before I owned a Switch. As a PS4 and PC gamer in addition to my Switch, I knew that modern games would struggle to fit in the limited onboard and cartridge solutions. My first purchase (in addition to Zelda) was a 128GB microSD. Sadly, I realize that many gamers have trouble affording the extras and I hope that future Switch models bump the storage to at least 64GB internally.

@Drommajin Yeah, it is crappy for a console maker in 2017 to offer 32GB of storage as the default. It is similar to Apple making the base storage 16GB in iPhones up until the iPhone7, which I believe was 32GB base. The pay more to get more approach is fine, but I wish companies would at least offer a usable amount of space with the initial offering. This is more true with Nintendo in this situation since console games on average require more space than phone apps.

@BLP_Software "And you get the internal AND SD storage not one or the other"

Well I was going to ask you if that is easily used but I see @IceClimbers has already answered that.

I'm willing to bet most parents who buy their kids a Switch for Christmas to play SMO or MK8D will also buy an SD card, probably 64GB or 128GB. They'll open the Switch and insert the card. They'll never ever go into the OS settings to move stuff to internal memory, it will just go to waste, unless when you download a game it asks where you want to install it. Nintneod might as well have built in 8GB - just for the OS and saves - if they are going to require an SD card for some games. Which I still can't fathom. Then they could have included a bigger SD card in the box. 32GB at launch, 64 in 2018, 128 in 2019. They kind of already did that w/ the 3DS family so there is precedent.

Maybe they'll figure it out later but Wii U never handled it well so I'm not optimistic. Shield TV Pro has a 500GB option, maybe SwitchTV will have that as well?

@DrommajinMy point is not if I'm fine with it or not. It's that we have a choice either way, no matter how this may evolve. We do have options.

For the record: No, I don't like this practice, and I thought I had made that suffciently clear in my first post already (second paragraph). I surely hope that it doesn't catch on, and it will only ever be games I don't want anyway.

To bring your statement that you're not fine with it and my statement that it's in fact optional (contrary to your earlier claim) together I can only repeat: Then don't buy the game. Show the publishr what you think about the practice and hope a sufficient number of other users see it your way and skip the game.

Because every single person interested in the game at all will make this decision: Am I okay with it to pay full price for a retail version of the game if it doesn't feature all content belonging to the base game on the cartridge and if I need an SD Card and download. There's a choice and decision process involved, i.e. buying the Memory Card is optional because buying such a game is optional, too. That's all I'm saying. I fear however that most will really not care enough to skip the games. And many will just get the download version anyway, so a major percentage might not be affected at all.

If I was interested in the game, I honestly do not know at this point what my decision would be, but I would still have a choice. But if I really, really want a game, I probably wouldn't let something like this stop me. I wouldn't like it, that's for sure, and I would probably just grudgingly accept the reality, because I can't help it either way. And if I decide that a game isn't worth making this compromise, I'll just skip it. It's not like there aren't thousands of other games I can still buy, play and enjoy. My backlog is several hundreds of hours long as it is, and the industry for some reason just keeps on adding more and more interesting choices/options by the minute...

There's a saying: "Change what you cannot accept, and accept what you cannot change!". Just whining about it does not do anything at all though (not saying that you're whining, don't get me wrong, but some people do... and make a habit out of it).

@dew12333Easy there, Mr/Ms Angry!!Just because this site relates to Nintendo, it does not mean they have to suck up to them nor blindly agree to all of their business decisions/choices. I, like many others, look at this site primarily because they are NOT afraid to be critical of some of Nintendo's decisions.

Xbox One/PS4 don't REQUIRE you to buy additional storage to play any game. They come with a minimum 500GB of storage out of the box. If space is running low, you can uninstall games you haven't played and still keep your saves. You are NEVER forced to buy additional storage. Is it really that hard to grasp? Enough with the false equivalency.

Sure, 64 or 128GB micro SD cards are reasonably priced, but with policies like this, how long will a 64 GB micro SD card last over the long term?
What if you want a 256GB card? Well, that's when the reasonable prices stop. Those are well over $100. Some are close to $200.

1. The Vita's memory cards are still overpriced. They did not go down in price.2. microSD cards are very cheap even up to 64 GB. 3. Most games on PS4 require a 1-20 GB download to even function, so Nintendo Switch is much easier to start playing from the box. 4. Most people will have microSD cards anyway, so it's not really that big of a deal.

While I don't really think any of this is an issue. The real complaint should be that Switch uses cartridges which cost more. Switch cartridges can go up to 64GB, which is bigger than the dual layered blu-rays the other systems use (50GB). But cartridges cost much more than blu-rays, especially the higher capacity ones. So 2K probably went for the cheaper 16GB version of the cartridge to save money that's why you need the extra storage for some of the modes. It's kind of annoying, but SD cards are cheap. You can easily get a 64GB one for under $20 and 128GB ones for about $40. Also all you need to do is pop them into the switch. You don't even have to remove the back, or unscrew anything.

@JunkRabbit Right. In the scenario I don't want to buy a memory card but I really want X game to play. What option do I have instead of being forced to buy. Not much of a option to make there, isn't? That's my point.

For example, NBA2K18 REQUIRES a Memory Card for you to play it. If you don't get one, you won't be able to play.

@TheLZdragon Thing is... what about the people who don't want to buy any additional memory? F"reak" them?

I don't want this BS. When I chose Switch, I loved the fact about cartridges not having me waiting a 20 minute download just to play it. As a matter of fact, that's simply why I ditched my PS4 and my XONE in the first place.

It's a shame that happened to Switch because using cartridges to avoid that BS was a real differential to me.

@Drommajin
But it is. Even in your scenario you have made a choice. You have decided, even if you're not happy about it, that playing THIS game on THIS console is so important to you that you're willing to make THIS compromise.

If you truly feel that this is unforgivable, then you must take your OTHER option, and that is to deny your desire to play THIS game on THIS console, and either don't play it at all or play it on a different system where there is no such issue. Or you don't buy it retail but download-only in the first place. That's already three simple options for you right there. Optional. Having a choice, that's what it means. And that's simply and plainly what it is.

Which of these three options you choose is ultimately up to you, but you will have made a decision, valid for you personally, and this decision is really based on choice and options. Or in other words: If there wasn't an option, I myself would have to buy the game if I liked it or not. But I don't have to make the choice you're making. I can decide differently. I will not buy the game. Period. This alone should sufficiently prove my point: two people with different decisions about buying the game (and ultimately one doesn't have to buy the Memory Card either). That's all it takes. Bam. Options.

So, to hopefully bring my point home (why is this still so hard to understand? it's a simple truth to my mind...), I'll make one last attempt with a somewhat drastic/exaggerated example: who's forcing you at gunpoint to play this game at all? And in consequence to play it on Switch instead of another system? AND to play the portion of the game that is download only (for which we don't even know yet what it will be)? (and just for argument's sake, you would even then still have a choice: you could take the bullet instead; a rough choice indeed, but a decision you could make nonetheless, depending on how much you really disapprove of this issue).

I don't know how this can be disagreed upon, seriously. One can disagree over whether or not the publisher's/Nintendo's decision to allow this is a smart move or not or if we like or dislike the thought (though we're actually in agreement on that point), but the fact remains that you do have plenty of choices, and anything game-related is completely optional. It's a luxury after all.

@Crono1973 You do understand that when you purchase a game online, you don't rent them, you purchase them and download them and have them until your device completely dies and can't even boot, even when the online shop shuts down (my DSiware titles say hi), heck just disconnect your console from the internet indefinitely and your digitally downloaded title still works indefinitely, so the online shop going down is obviously not a factor in if your downloaded games will still work or not. Now maybe if I were to ever for some reason delete a digital title, and they shut down their digital shops, I might not be able to redownload the title, but I've never once deleted a single digital title that I've purchased. I look at my digital titles on my Wii, 3DS, Wii U, 360, PS3, etc. etc. and they still work like a charm, so no I really doubt I'll regret anything with downloading my titles.

You say "A half-physical, half-digital game has no physical benefit at all." But that wasn't my point. My point is that this is good news because Nintendo isn't restricting titles to not be any larger than a game can possibly fit on their game cartridges, and I was genuinely concerned about that, this news means that the likes of GTA V could indeed theoretically come to the system. Considering I purchase all my games digitally (with exception to my first title), I don't perceive anything negative about this news, but rather am excited that it means that Nintendo isn't being as restrictive as they had been in the past.

@duffmmann I call it a rental when it comes with a time limit vs physical that does not come with a time limit.

Once that shop goes down and your device stops working, your games are gone whereas if you had bought physical (for the same price, often cheaper) then neither your device nor the shop would put a time limit on your games.

@Crono1973 I mean under that logic, you're under a time limit before you break or lose your physical cartridge, so in that same sense you're also "renting" your physical titles as well. Fact of the matter is, your games are always at risk of being lost no matter how you choose to get them, digital or physical. The online shop going down will never be a real issue for me, unless I've also lost or broken the device I play them on. But at the same time, since they aren't physically separate items, I'm less likely to lose or damage them. So its a risk either way. I'll personally stick with digital titles, especially for a portable system so that I don't have to also carry around my games separately and risk losing them or deal with the hassle of getting off the couch and needlessly swapping out games. Also, I've not once bought a digital price at a higher price than the same title new physically. In fact often digital titles will go on sale while they physically remain at full price. I suppose you can buy titles cheaper used though, that's true.

@duffmmann Do you commonly lose or break your physical games? I can say that I have never broken one and I can't remember ever losing one. I guess physical is for people who know how to take care of things.

@Crono1973 yup, little brother broke at least 3 of my PS1 games back in the day. And I've definitely lost a handful of games for various systems over the years. I can thankfully say that neither has (or even can) occur with my digital titles. I can personally take care of my things just fine, but when you have a loving family that you share things with, stuff is bound to get broken or lost.

@Crono1973 I'm sorry, I'm not a monster, I definitely share with my brothers, always did, there was never a desire to store my games so they couldn't use them. Perhaps you were an only child and can't identify with that?

I don't doubt my ability to take care of games, never have. But again, I'll personally stick with digital titles, especially for a portable system so that I don't have to also carry around my games separately and risk losing them or deal with the hassle of getting off the couch and/or opening and closing a carrying case and needlessly swapping out games.

I prefer convenience whenever possible. Plus how can you not love seeing your entire game collection pop up on your system when you boot it up? Heck the other day I played about 30 minutes of Splatoon 2, took a break to play some Mario + Rabbids for an hour or so and then went back to Splatoon 2, easiest thing in the world, go to the menu navigate to the game and boot it up, didn't even have to get up from the couch, where as if I had them physically I would have had to pointlessly swap them out twice which would have been incredibly annoying considering i was going back to the same game I started playing earlier.

Cool if you prefer physical, but I just see far more advantages in digital in this day and age over physical especially for a portable system.

Here is a good way to visualize how much more I love having my games digitally over physically. If I only bought physical my home screen would look like this

But by only going digital, you get the whole library, so that your system might one day look something like this:

@The64Master I really hope you're wrong...but it's hard to make a counter point after my Wii U experience. I bought Madden 13 and NBA 2K13 and couldn't figure out why there wasn't a Madden 14 or NBA 2K14 until I looked up the sales of '13...abysmal! I would have dropped it too if it with those numbers.

I really hope you're wrong, because in 2 or3 years I'd like to buy NBA 2K20 or 21 but if they can't sell NBA 2K18 why would they bring out any future versions?

@SBandy Yes, NBA 2K18 will use more than 20GB. I bought the digital version of NBA 2K13 on my Wii U. It wouldn't download so I moved ALL game and save data to a flash drive and tried again, and it still didn't have enough space. I broke down and bought an external hard drive and then learned (if I remember correctly) it was a little over 25 GB. It's been 5 years and games don't shrink so I fully expect closer to 30 GB this time around.

@duffmmann Actually, I prefer a clean dashboard on my console/handheld so seeing all my games pop up on the dashboard isn't a desire I have. On the Wii U, 3DS and PS3 I put them all in folders.

Anyway, the benefits of physical:

There are often more sales on physical as there are many stores to choose from.

They can be bought used so even if you can't find them on sale, used will always be a couple of dollars cheaper than new. New prices are based on the digital price. When that $40 3DS game goes down to $20 on the eShop, other stores will drop the price too but that doesn't always work in reverse.

You can sell them if you are done with them to help finance a new game (or a used one).

@Crono1973 Definitely can't identify with that at all. The system looks so bare and boring in the home menu with only one game to choose from.

Again, never did I see any physical title on sale for less than the digital version when I make my purchases, (I do always check to make sure I get the best deal). Buying and selling used is the only real benefit to physical, and I don't trust used copies of games, especially when they're on disk, I'm less wary when it comes to cartridges, though still I always have reservations. Selling used is probably the biggest benefit, but if you do sell used, don't go to Gamestop or the like, or you'll get seriously ripped off, ebay or craigslist are the way to go if you want to sell used. Even still, I haven't sold one of my games away in years. I still have all my old systems with most of the games I bought for them over the years, as its still a joy to play them even today, (I got a friend who for whatever reason love Smash 64 over all other versions of that game, I still have it for my N64, so we can still play it together often). Yeah, for me, the benefits of digital absolutely outweigh the benefits of physical, but we all have our own preferences, and I understand that.

@FinalFrog lol that's a deep coffee breakdown- I can see what you're saying though but my point is now Nintendo is forcing gamers to buy a memory card when really they shouldn't have to. For me I have a 256G card so if I buy/download NBA 2k 18 which is apparently 25G, well then I'm good. Wii U, PS4, Xbox one I have external drives but at least with the PS4 and the one you had 500G out the gate to work with. At the very least, the Switch should've had at least 64G internally to start off with after the Wii U was limited to 32 no? And at 51 years old I've never been told that cream, sugar etc etc was extra. Seems today it's purely based on the size cup as you mentioned. I don't know many that takes their coffee just black either lol. I certainly can't drink it black lol that's for sure! 😊

@FinalFrog That doesn't even make sense. Those old physical games were never available as digital for those old systems, but if they were and I had bought them I could still play them today. Heck my original NES from 1990, is still up and running to this day. Many of my old NES games I have to blow in endlessly to get to work once though, however if they were available right on the system digitally I wouldn't have any issue running those titles. So yeah, put it all together and understand what I'm saying. I can't change the past, those old systems with only physical titles will always be that way, but if they did also offer them digitally it would absolutely have been beneficial. As to your last point, what I was saying is that I really don't sell off my games anymore, I like to revisit most of my games and play them again. Unless they are a bad game, but I research games so well these days that I really haven't bought a bad game in at least a decade.

@duffmmann Well, I can't prove it but I am sure some here can back up the fact that stores have sales (Target has them all the time) on games. Often used game shops run Buy 2 Get 1 Free on used games. Used games always come with atleast a 7 day guarantee so if they don't work, you can return them. For 360 games, you can find out real fast if the disc is 100% readable by installing it. For modern games, they all require installation anyway. For game cards, you will know within 7 days if they don't read well. For older cartridges, have them tested before you leave the store (they also have the same return policy). Test them to see if they boot up on the first try and see if the save battery still works.

Gamestop also has trade in deals where you can get up to 60% extra on your trade ins.

Now, in the future the Wii U version of Breath of the Wild may be worth more than it costed new. Guess how much a digital Wii U version will be worth? Just look at Earthbound (for example), it sells for over $200 for the physical copy (loose, no box and no guide) but the digital version has no resale value at all.

@Crono1973 I understand that there may be times when stores have better sales then the digital prices. However, whenever I have personally decided I wanted to get a new game, I've looked at all the big stores for better deals and not seen them. Maybe if I waited a few weeks or months a better sale would have come for a physical version, but I wasn't looking for that.

If I had the likes Earthbound I absolutely would not sell it, so its resale value its meaningless to me. I really don't sell my used games anymore so that whole aspect is really going to be lost on someone like me.

@duffmmann Modern consoles won't last as long as the NES or the SNES and neither will the HDD's that store your games. If you are expecting your Switch to be working in 30 years, good luck. Further, let's take your NES example. If you have The Legend of Zelda cartridge and your NES does die, you can play it on any NES or even clone consoles. Digital games are often tied to the console and once the store is gone, there will be no re-downloading or license transfer.

@Crono1973 But the point is, the systems last longer than the games, at least for those classic systems. So many of my old NES games take some major blowing to get to work again, and it isn't hard to think that in 10 years from now that those games may not work at all, yet my NES runs like a dream, if all those titles were available digitally I wouldn't have to deal with blowing into each cartridge as it clings to life.

@FinalFrog do you make all your purchases based on what you'll be doing with them 30 years from now? When it comes to media, I absolutely look to what will be more convenient with the media in the time that I'll actually be using the media. I don't know if I'll have my Switch still running in 30 years, but honestly, I don't care. When it comes to making big purchases like a boat, I don't hinge that on the belief that my video game collection might maybe one day pay for it, I'd rather just save up for the boat and buy it within the next decade so that I can still keep and play my Switch and enjoy the boat in a much timelier manner.

@Crono1973 Who is to say that? Nintendo has been around over 100 years, its probably a safe bet that years from now you'll be able to transfer your Switch collection to a new Switch. Heck if I bought another Wii U right now, I could transfer all my old purchased digital Wii titles to the Wii U without even connecting to the internet.

I mean unless they change that system in the future, Nintendo could go out of business, shut down all their internet services and you would still be able to transfer those titles between those systems. Now granted, nothing YET has been implement like that for transferring Switch titles to another Switch or the Switch's successor, but given that the 3DS and Wii U could make these kinds of transfers while being offline, I don't see why that won't be the case for the Switch in the future.

@Crono1973 No it doesn't (did it with my wii to Wii U and my DSi to 3DS without an internet connection, though it did take a long time, since they were only communicating with each other through their wireless signal), plus you do also have the option to do the transfer (of only the games saved on SD) through your PC as well though its a bit more of complicated (but also faster) way than by transferring from system to system with their wireless connection.

@Crono1973 lol, I'm not worrying about that at all, ask me in 20 years if my Switch starts giving me issues and I haven't already trasnferred my games to the Switch's successor(s). Enjoy needlessly swapping out your games while I seamlessly return to the home menu and boot into my next game. Cheers

@duffmmann It is so hard. A few days ago I swapped out my Dragon Quest 8 card for my Tomodachi Life card and my arm still hurts! It's not just the weight of the card, it's having to use hundreds of calories to get the card out! While it took me almost an hour to transfer my O3DS to my N3DS, it takes much longer to switch out a game card! /s

Just having a bit of fun but eventually we will lose the choice of physical vs digital and with it will go the consumer right known as the First Sale Doctrine. Also, I hope you never find yourself saddled with a bandwidth cap. What if, in a non Net Neutrality world, your ISP decides that you should pay extra to get decent speeds when connecting to Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft or Steam.

@Crono1973 like I said, I'll take any bit of convenience I can get. Why risk losing those little cartridges if you don't have to, and it really is frustrating if you want to go back to a game you were just playing only 30 minutes ago, deny that all you want. Cool if you like them, but again for me, the benefits of digital absolutely outweigh those of physical. But we're all different people with different backgrounds, when digital was first coming to the scene, I was actually on your side, but as the idea of digital has evolved and become much more future-proof, my opinion did a full 180, as you can see in my passionate arguments that I've been putting forth here. Again, cheers!

@Crono1973 frankly, nothing. Maybe if i saw a game i really wanted for sale used at like 75% off or more of the retail price. But that would be on a game to game basis. Overall I'll definitely be sticking with digital. Like I said, for me anyway, the benefits far outweigh those of physical these days.

@FinalFrog Floppy discs are a perfect example why digital is better. Those things were fragile to say the least, I'd feel much safer knowing the data on a floppy disc were on the computer's hard drive instead. While I know most my old floppies likely will have issues if they could even still work today, yet I still have PCs from 2 decades ago that boot up no problem.

I'm continually amazed that anyone wants this system. The list of pros I can count on one hand, while the list of cons is so long I could write them on a scroll and unroll it across a banquet hall floor.

@ThumperUKHi Thumper, you was correct with my name, but Mr if you please.

I understand your comment and do not mind people having a different opinion to myself, I generally choose not to comment if I just disagree. However I take offence to having editorials using derisory comments like the couldn't organise a 'p*** up in a brewery' referring to them making poor business decisions and questioning them in such an outright way. And this editorial is not alone in it's damnation of Nintendo, here are some of the more recent - 'Seriously Nintendo, It's Time For A Switch Joy-Con With A Proper D-Pad''Farewell to the Flawed Miiverse, But Thanks for the Memories''The SNES Classic Edition Pre-Order Farce Proves Nintendo Hasn't Learned A Thing''amiibo Has Stalled, Because Nintendo is Forgetting What Makes It Special'There seem to be a theme here and from several commenters who both seem to feel it necessary to always question the way Nintendo do thingsI and feel that they know better. I doubt that very much!!

The very minor argument you make about the 3DS including an SD card is moot, because the 3DS doesn't have any onboard memory that eshop games can access (there is a minor section for DSiWare games, but that's it!). So it was very much required that Nintendo include that (originally 2gig and currently 4gig) SD card. Just like how Nintendo upped that SD card in the 3DS, I don't doubt the Switch at some point down the line will get upgraded internal memory, but given that expandable storage is a thing, it's not a necessity.

the NBA 2K18 sd requirement is a mess, and I'm sure it's a sign of things to come from major third parties (as it sets a precedent) that won't opt to have beefier Switch cards, but do this quasi half half thing.

@PanurgeJr Ya and realistically in a year or two I doubt you will see less than 64gig in the base model. As an early adopter you always get the crappiest version of a console for the generation too unfortunately.